Matthew A. Pelnso; Esq. 1113 Carnegie Center Suite 3013 Princeton; NJ Counsel for Plaintiffs Victoria Alberto; John Baker; Pete Bongioyanni; SUPERICIR COURT CF NEW JERSEY Alan Brundage; RobeIt Carney; Frank Carraf'rello; LAW DIVISIDH-PASSAJC CCUNTY Christopher Chan; Michael Bovine; Gabriel Escobar; Robert Espinosa; Robert Hintaen; Andrew Kara; John W. LaBuca; Tom Miller; James Mullin; John J. Paletto; Denise Ryaby; oocrorr ND. Locales-17 James Smith; Christopher Sullivan; Sara Toro; and Stan Toybin CIVIL ACTICIN Plaintiffs; ys. Michael Saudirro; individually; and in his of?cial {with Jury Demand) capacity as Bergen County Sheriff; the Bergen County Sheriff" Office; the County of Bergen; and the Bergen County Prosecutor-is le?ce Uetbndants. Plaintiffs; Victoria Alberto, John Baker; Pete Bongioyanni, Alan Brundage; Robert Carney; Frank Carrafiello, Christopher Chan; Michael Device; Gabriel Escobar; Robert Espinosa. Robert liintzen; Andrew Kara; John w. LaDuca, Tom Miller; James Mullin; John J. Paletto; Dmise Ryaby; James Smith, Christopher Sullivan; Sara Toro and Stan oybin (?Plaintiffs?); by way of Complaint against Defendants, Michael Saudino; individually; and in his official capacity as Bergen County Sheriff {?Saudino?); the Bergen County Sheriff?s th?ce the County of Bergen {the ?County?? {hereina?er collectively referred to as ?Befendants?]; and Defendant, the Bergen County Prosecutor?s Of?ce respectively say: 1. At all times relevant hereto; Plaintiffs were employed as police of?cers with the County in the Bureau of Police Services of the BCSD. Matthew A. Peluso, Esq. 183 Carnegie Center Suite 330 Princeton, NJ 03540 Counsel for Plaintiffs Victoria Alberto; John Baker; Pete Bongiovanni; SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY Alan Brundage; Robert Carney; Frank Carra?cllo; 1 LAW EDD-PITT Christopher Chan; Michael Devine: Oabriel Escohar; Robert Espinosa; Robert Hintacn: Andrew Kara; John W. LaDuea; Torn Miller; James Mullin; John I, Palette; Denise Ryahy; DOCKET NO. Jaraes Smith: Christopher Sullivan; Sara Toro; and Stan Tovbin CWIL ACTION Plaintiffs, vs. COMPLAINT Michael Saudino, individually, and in his official (with Jury Demand} capacity as Bergen County Sheriff; the Bergen County Sherist Of?ce; the County of Bergen; and the Bergen County Prosecutor?s Of?ce Delhndants. Plainti?s, Iv?ictoria Alberto, John Baker, Pete Bongiovanni, Alan Brundage, Robert Carney, Frank Carra?ello, Christopher Chan, Michael Devine, Gabriel Escohar, Robert Espinosa, Robert Ilintaen, Andrew Kara, John W. LaDuca, Tom Miller, James Mullin, John J. Palette, Denise Hyahy, James Smith, Christopher Sullivan, Sara Tore and Stan Tovbin (?Plaintiffs?), by way of Complaint against Defendants, Michael Saudino, individually, and in his of?cial capacity as Bergen County Sheriff the Bergen County Sheriff?s Of?ce the County of Bergen {the (hereinafter collectively referred to as ?Defendants?l; and Defendant, the Bergen County Prosecutor?s Of?ce respectively say: THE PARTIES I. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were employed as police of?cers with the County in the Bureau of Police Services of the BCSO. 2. Plaintiffs, Robert Hinteen and James Smith reside in the County ot'Passaic. Therefore, venue in this court is established by virtue of their residency in Passaic County pursuant to 13,. 4:3? and in accordance with 3. 423?3 since blatant and irreconcilable personal and professional con?icts exist between Saudino and other employees of the County, BCSCI and all of whom have engaged in acts of retaliation against Plaintiffs in violation of CEPA as set forth infra, and numerous sitting judges of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, as the result of direct working relationships developed on a daily basis for years, including, inter Sheriff of? cers? daily work assignments in all of the courtrooms in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County and die appearances and work of Bergen County Prosecutors before these judges on behalf of?efendant, the BCPCII. 3. At all times relevant Saudine was employed by the County as the Sheriff of the County, in aceordanee with Article Section 2, paragraph 2 of the New Jersey Constitution, and, thus, had, inter site, the highest command ranlt in the BCSCI and supervisory authority over Plaintifls at the County following the realigtunent of the former Bergen County Police Department with the in 2015, including, but not limited to, the authority to assign, discipline, demote and terminate Plaintiffs. 4. At all times relevant hereto, the County is, and was, a governmental entity loeated in l-laeltensacl-t, New Jersey, and was, with the the employer ol'Plaintiffs as that term is defined under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act NJSA. 34:19-1, et. seq, and oversaw and controlled various administrative functions of the County and BCSD, and its agent Saudino, and other employees and agents of the County and ECSCI, and was the employer of PlaintilTs as that term is de?ned under 5. all times relevant hereto, Defendant, the is, and was, a department of the County located in Ilacltensack, New Jersey and was, with the County, the employer of Plaintiffs as that term is de?ned under CEPA, and oversaw and controlled various administrative functions of the 2 County, and its agent Baudino, and other employees and agents of the lCounty and BCBD, and was the employer of Plaintiffs as that term is de?ned under CEPA. a At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, the Bergen County Prosecutor?s Of?ce was a department of the County, and has, truer altar, investigative authority through its lntemal Affairs division over employees of the County and BCSD. including for purposes of this Complaint, Plaintiffs, John Baker and Andrew Kara tb rough their membership on the Bergen County Regional Swat Team. meow (CEPA) Plaintiffs repeat, restate and incorporate all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 5 above, as ifrepeated verbatim herein. 3. The New Jersey Conscientious Employee Protection Act NASA. 34:l9?l, et seq, was enacted to protect and encourage employees, such as Plaintiffs, to report unlawful workplace activities, and to discourage public sector employers, such as Defendants, from engaging in such activity. CEPA seeks to overcome the victimization of employees and to protect those who are especially vulnerable in the workplace from the improper or unlawful exercise of authority by employers. 9. CEPA provides New Jersey employees with a cause of action for retaliatory assignment of job duties, demotion or termination when employees obicct, andfor refuse, to panicipate in any activity, policy or practice that the employees reasonably believe violates law. Pursuant to CEPA, employees may, without fear of retaliation ?'om their employer, lawfully and rightfully object, refuse to participate in, or disclose, or threaten to disclose, to a supervisor or public body, an activity, policy or practice of their employer or another employer that the employees reasonably believe are, inter alto, in violation of a law, or arule or regulation promulgated pursuant to law. La) ll]. Du lune Etl, 201?, Plaintiffs, through their union, directly and publicly noti?ed Defendants that they had rejected a proposal by Saudino whereby, inter ntin, Plaintiffs would no longer be employed as police o?ieers for the County in the Bureau of Police Services, which such entity would cease to exist, and would instead all become Sheriff?s o?ieers for the County (?Proposal") 11. Plaintiffs rejected Saudino*s Proposal because their acceptance of the Proposal would have, inter cite: led to the disbanding of Plaintiffs" longstanding union and there rights therein: signi?cantly reduced the annual wages of each Plaintiff; reduced their health and pension bene?ts; increased their mandatory work hours without an increase in pay, and as set limb in subsection with an attendant decrease in their wages; led to a loss ol'Plaintiffsl seniority in the BCSCI, which would have, inter alto, subjected them to earlier termination in the litture; placed Plaintiffs on employment probation for one year regardless of whether, inter alto, Plaintiffs had any attendant disciplinary charges against them or had received poor performance evaluations; imposed a three year prohibition on Plaintiffs being eligible for any promotions in the imposed a three year prohibition on Plaintiffs being eligible for any assignments to ?speeialixed? units within the BCSO, including, inter alto, the Bureau of Criminal Investigations, bomb squad, unit and K9 squad; imposed an unnecessary year-long training period for Plainu?'s, despite their years of service as police of?cers; and mandated Ihat Plaintiffs waive all existing, and even future legal rights and claims, against Delendants without sufficient financial consideration. 12. Plaintiffs reasonably, rightfully and justi?ably believed, and still believe, that most, if not all, of the conditions mandated in Saudino?s Proposal to them, set forth in paragraphs It] and 11 above, violated, inter alto, their existing legal and contractual rights under their controlling collective bargaining agreement and as employees of the County, and several rules, policies and regulations of the County, as well as their rights under existing employment and public laws in this state, and communicated their concerns and refusal to participate in Saudino?s unlawful plans for them, both 4 directly and through their union, to Saudino and other ranking officials and employees of the County, including when they publicly rejected Saudino?s Proposal, and were willing to continue discussions and negotiations with Defendants regarding theirjustitiable legal concerns. l3. Yet, on June 26, Bill. 7, in retaliation for, inter afin, Plaintilfs? reasonable public rejection of Saudino?s Promsal, Saudino demoted Plaintiff's, Alberto, Brundage, Carraficllo, Chan, Dcvine, Escobar, Espinosa, LalJuca, Miller, Muf?n, Palette, Ryaby, Smith and Tore, which has subsequently led to the involuntary early retirement of Plaintiffs, Etrundagc, Espinosa, Miller and Palette, and terminated Plaintiffs, Eongiovanni, Hintaen, Kara, Sullivan and Tovbin, all based upon alleged, but, in fact, fabricated and pretestual budgetary and staffing reasons, which did, and do, not exist, as evidenced, inter alto, by Defendants? hiring of new Sheriff?s officers and the promotion of less quali?ed Sheriffs of?cers aligned with Saudino [including one Sheriff" of?cer promoted to the ranlt of Captain, three to the rank of Lieutenant and seven (T) to the rank of Sergeant} to replace the terminated and demoted Plaintiffs at their former ranks and in their former positions and assignments. Further, of the eleven I) promotions of Sheri tf?s officers made by Saudino, who never served in the military, only one of them had served in the military. Whereas, of the officers in the Bureau of" Police Services demoted audfor terminated by Saudino in June and July 201?, including Plaintiff?s, Batter, Brundage, Camrfiello, Devinc, Kara, Muf?n and Sullivan, eleven (11} of the demoted police of?cers were military veterans and thirteen {13] of the terminated police of?cers were military veterans. Titus, despite Defendants? public claims of alleged support for military veterans, their adverse employment actions against, and hostility toward, veterans, including the Plaintiffs set forth above, directly contradict their mere ?lip-service? support for police of?cers who have also served this country in the United States Armed Forces. l4. Initially, Saudino wrongfully terminated Plaintiff, John Salter, in June 2?017, but was then forced shortly thereafter to rc-hire him due to Baker?s status as a disabled veteran. However, as set forth in the Third Count below, Defendants, and agents and employees of Defendant, the BCPD, 5 including, but not limited to Assistant Bergen County Prosecutor, Martin IiItrelaney and BCPC Detective Juan Arroyave, have continued to retaliate against Plaintiff, Baker in violation of CEPA for, inter alto, his rejection of Saudino?s Proposal by, inter alto, wrongfullyr dismissing him from his longstanding position on the Bergen County Regional Swat Team, humping-up false disciplinary and internal affairs charges against him, and subjecting him to physical threats and verbal abusive, all of which has created a hostile and harassing work environment intended by Defendants and various agents and employees of the BCPCI to pressure him into an involuntary resignation in order to achieve, inter alto, his termination that Defendants initial failed to obtain. 15. Co I one 13, 2017, and in direct violation of CEPA, Sandino demoted Plaintiff, then- Sergeant, Robert Carney from his position as the most senior Sergeant in the BCSC down to an ollicer assigned to the midnight shift, despite good and outstanding performance evaluations for his work. However, a few days after Saudino personally in formed Carney that he was demoted, Brian P. Smith, Undersheriff of the BCSC, told Carney that he was not demoted and that he would continue to work as a Sergeant on the midnight shift. Yet, in July 201?, Saudine again told Plaintiff, Carney that he was being demoted down to officer, even though Carney had scored ?rst on the list of applicants in the most?recent promotional testing for the rank of Lieutenant in the BCSD. Further, Plaintiff, Carney was actually demoted down from his Jayne-lo work as a Lieutenant in the almost one year prior to his demotion, for which work he was ultimately paid at the Lieutenant rank on August 13, 231?. In clear violation of CEPA, Saudino demoted Plaintiff, Carney, in retaliation for, inter cite: a prior CEPA lawsuit that Carney had brought against the County and certain employees thereof, which he success?illy settled in 5, and which Saudino personally in formed Carney would prevent him from being promoted to a Lieutenant in the BCSCI because Saudino said that he would not rede Carney?s lawsuit with a promotion; fb] Carney?s refusal to accept Saudincis request that he leave his employment as a Sergeant in the Bureau of Police Services and become a Sheri ff" officer, which would have constituted a demotion in rank and caused Carney to suffer a significant reduction in pay; 6 and Carney?s outmoken rejection of Saudino?s Proposal, including Carney?s admission that he voted to rej eet Saudino?s unlawful Proposal in a telephone conversation, in which Sandino improperly asked Carney whether he voted to reject his Proposal and in which Saudino then expressed his anger to Carney about his rejection of the Proposal and directly told Carney that he had to ensure that ?his guys? (Le. Sheriff?s officers} obtained the most favorable treatment as against police officers like Plaintill's in the BPS. is On lune 16, Bill T, and in direct violation of CEPA, Saudino demoted Plaintiff, then? Sergeant, John Palette, down to oflicer, despite his seniority in the BCSU, his assignment as Patrol Supervisor and his assignment to the Bergen County Bomb Squad. However, shortly after his demotion, Palette received notification from Defendants that his demotion was rescinded, only to be infoMed on July 19, Elli? that he was again demoted. 17". In addition to the retaliatory terminations and demotions set forth in paragraphs 13-16 above, Saudino, and other employees and agents of the BCSD, also subsequently and punitively eliminated, removed andfor reassigned many of the demoted Plaintiffs still working with the BCSU, including, but not limited to, Plaintiffs, Baker, Erundage, Carney, La?uea, lvlullin and Smith, as set forth in paragraphs 14-16 above, and id below, from their previous, and often longstanding, supervisory and departmental positions and assigmnimts, andfor eliminated the recognised administrative and supervisory authority and duties within their assigned shifts, divisions and teams, and subjected them to disparate treatment compared with Sherist Officers in the HES-CI with regard to their administrative and supervisory rights in their ranks, assignments and teams, all in further retaliation for their refusal to accept Saudino's Proposal and as part of Defendants? intent to create a hostile work environment through which they sought, and continue, to pressure, harass, intimidate and coerce the demoted Plaintiifs to resign or involuntarily retire earlier than the mandatory retirement age of 65, all in violation of CEPA. Further, as evidence of the fabricated and preteatual reasons behind the unlawful and retaliatory removals and rc-assignrnents of the demoted Plaintiffs by Saudino and other employees and agents of the BSCU, Saudino has given Sheriff?s of?eers aligned with him, and with less seniority, eaperienee and quaiifieations then me demoted Plaintiffs, as well as with legally insufTieient, and in some eireurnstanees non-esistent, training, the same departmental positions, assignments, responsibilities and authority previously held by the demoted, but more quali?ed, Plaintiffs. Further, upon ?nding out about Piaintiffsi intent to ?le this Complaint, Saudino threatened union representatives of Plaintiffs that he intends to terminate all of the Plaintiffs for filing this aetion, whieh, in and ofitself, eonstitutes a separate and distinet violation of CEP and only serves to eonfirnt all of the allegations set forth in this lCompliant. 13. Further, in violation of CEPA, both before and after the retaliatory terminations, demotions, dismissals and re?assignrnents described in paragraphs 12-l above, Saudino, and other ranking and supervisory employees and agents of the County and REED, also retaliated against Plaintiffs beeause of their refusal to agree to Saudino?s unlawful Proposal by intentionally harassing. verbally abusing and intimidating Plaintiffs, and ereating an inereasingly hostile environment in order to pressure Plaintills to accept his Proposal, andfor to resign or involuntarily retire earlier than the mandatory retirement age of 65. with sueh aets harassment, intimidation and hostility including, but not limited to, some of the lollowing examples: Even sinee his wrongful terminations and demotions of Plaintiffs in June and July 2613, Saudino has made it known to Plaintith that he intends to further retaliate against the already demoted Plainti?s who are still working for Defendants by terminating them from their employment as early as January 2?013 for, frIr'E?T alto, their re?usal to his Proposal, or to involuntarily resign or retire early, and for their refusal to bow to the inereas ed and intentional hostile work environment that Saudino and other of?eers and agents of the BCSD are subjeeting the remaining demoted Plaintiffs, including, but not limited to. the constant fear that they are going to pennanently lose theirjobs, despite Delendants" hiring of new Sheriff? olTieers to replaee them and promoting of current Sherili?s oilieers to their prior ranks and despite Defendants? patently false and pretestual claims of budgetaryr and other staf?ng allegations. 0n January 5, 2017, Chief Kevin of the BCSCI attempted to fabricate liaise disciplinary charges against Plaintiff, Victoria Alberto. Plaintiff, then?Sergeant, Sara Torn. an Internal Affairs officer liar the HCSCI, infon'ned Plainti?; then?Captain, Alan Brundage regarding an alleged incident involving then?Sergeant, Alberto. Torn, who believed that she was unlawfully being pressured to make false allegations against Alberto, inlinrrned that she had been directed by Sheriff?s Officer Lieutenant Uiustra, to ?write Alberto up" for allegedly inappropriate conduct concerning Alberta?s interactions with another police agency over the telephone- Brundage advised Torn to send him an e?mail about the matter, and told her that he would respond accordingly. Brundage also advised Torn to tell Lt. Criustra that andage would abide by the Attorney General Guidelines for internal Affairs investigations. Upon his receipt of Tom?s e? mail, requested, inter site, any investigation notes on the complaint against Alberto. Erunclage was advised that no investigation had been conducted. Brundage requested the name of the individual who had brought the complainant against Alberto. Brundage was initially told that he was the complainant against Alberto. Knowing this to be patently faise, Brundage investigated and determined that Chief Fell of the had brought the complaint against Alberto. Brundagc investigated the alleged underlying incident involving Alberto and found that, inter aha, she had not violated ?any rules, regulations or laws and maintained a professional demeanor throughout her telephonic interaction with the agency requesting assistance." The day after completing his investigation, Erundage was ordered to respond to the Sheriff" le?ce with Captain Lepinslti to meet with Chief Pcll. During this meeting, ChiefPelI attempted to pressure Brunclage into changing his investigative findings regarding Alberto, which Brunclage rejected. When refused to change his ?ndings, Chief Pell became verbally abusive and hostile, which forced Capt Lepinski to intervene on behal of Brundage in support of him. In clear violation Chief Pell retaliated against Plaintiff, Brundagc by informing him that would no longer be involved in 9 investigations of complaints against subordinate of?cers under his command- andage responded that removing him from that process would be a violation of BCSG department rules and the Attorney General guidelines. Chief Pell responded to Brundage?s noti?cation about violation of departmental and state rules by stating to Brundage: ?Then we will just have to re?writc the rules.? Appreniniately 24 hours later, ChiefPell further retaliated against Brundage by ordering Brundage to vacate his office and relocate to the first floor of the County building. in addition, shortly after receiving that order, Plaintiff, then-Captain, James Mullin and Brundagc were ordered to a meeting with Undersheriff Brian Smith and Executive Undersheii of the BCSCI, George Huene- During that meeting, Boone, began verbally abusing Brundage over his decision in the IA complaint against Plaintilf, Alberto. Since Esecutive Undersheriff, Bueno was a civilian employee of the BCSG, and, thus, strictly lbrbidden from any knowledge or, or involvement in, any Internal All'airs investigation, he should not have been aware of Ihe in. complaint involving Alberto and was certainly prohibited from questioning Erundage about his investigation ?ndings and decision. Yet, Bueno bemted Hrundagc during the meeting about his investigation, and admitted that he personally bianied Plaintiffs, Mullin and Brundagc, as well as other Bergen County Police tlf?cers, for the failed merger between the Bergen County police of?cers? department and the Emerson Police Department, when Saudine was Chief of the Emerson Police Department and Boone was a Captain in that department. When Plaintiff, Brundage denied having anything to do with the failed merger, Buene accused him of direct responsibility for the failed merger because Brundagc had been the president the local police effi ccrs? union at the time. Following his false allegations against Plaintiffs, Brundage and lviullin, Bueno began to pressure them to retire. Plaintiffs, Brundagc and Mullin informed Boone that they had no plans to retire at any time in the near future. However, in retaliation for, inter cilia, PlaintitT, Brudage?s re?isal to change his investigative ?ndings and decision in the Mberte IA complaint, Brundage was demoted from Captain down to Lieutenant on June 26, 2013?. Given the demotion, the denial of his supervisory rights and the hostile work environment to which he was being subjected on a daily basis l? by Defendants, as well as the significant loss of pension benefits Bnmdage would suffer at his demoted rank if he stayed in that lower rank, Brundage was involuntarily forced to retire on August 1, EMT, over a decade before he had planned to retire from his decorated and successful career as a police officer in Bergen County. In addition, despite his lack of direct involvement in Plaintiff. Brundage?s IA investigation into the Alberto incident and Brundage?s conclusion that there was no basis for any discipline against Alberto, ChiefPell wrongfully and falsely issued a ?verbal repri mand" against Plaintiff, Alberto, in further retaliation for her rejection of Saudineis Proposal, and as part of a had faith attempt by Defendants to trump-up future, more serious disciplinary charges against her under the rule of ?progressive discipline,? which is often used by Saudine, and other employees and agents of Defendants, to falsely demote or terminate Bergen County police of?cers that they want to eliminate in order to replace them with Sheri?'i of?cers aligned widi, and under the control of, Saudino and the 011']th Defendants; Following his demotion from Lieutenant to Sergeant on June Re, BENT, and despite being ranked second on the Captain?s list, Plaintiff, John LaDuca has had all of his administrative authorityr and responsibilities removed, even though he is assigned to the Administrative Division, as part of Saudino?s continuing retaliation against, and hostility toward, LaDuca because of his rejection of Saudinois unlawful Proposal. In addition, LaDuca, who has been the commander of the Bergen County Bomb Squad for the last five years, has been subject to retaliation and an increasingly hostile work environment after his recent unlaw?il demotion, because, inter alto, of his complaints to BSCD Chief Poll and Executive Undershen'tf Buene, as well as other employees of the BCSU, regarding dangerous understaffmg of the Bomb Squad and Dcfendantsi failure to remedy this de?ciency. In the summer and fall of 201 LaDuca complained to Pell and Boone about understaf?ng and under?training of Bomb Squad members, as well as Chief Pellis admission to LaDuea that he was only going to assign Sheriffs officers, not Bergen County police offi cars, to the Bomb Squad. In response, Poll directly and unlaw?ill verbally abused and threatened La?uea that he may remove all of the Bergen County police officers currently assigned to the Bomb Squad and replace them all with Sheriff?s officers. In addition, in retaliation for his complaints, lsaljluea has been, and continues to be, excluded from noti?cation of important Bomb Squad and other events and scheduling matters in retaliation. for his complaints to Pelt about? inter alloy Sherist officers replacing Bergen County police of?cers in the Bomb Squad Also, despite having haen assigned to the BCSD Crisis Negotiatmg since 20134, and commander of that unit since 21MB. La?uca was recently removed from the Crisis Negotiating team for nojustifiable reasons but merely in further retaliation for his refusal to accept Saudino?s unlawful Prdposal, and his recent and continuing complaints about unfair and unlawful disparate treatment ofBergen County police officers compared to Sheriff?s officers aligned with Saudino, Pelt, Burma and other ranking officers of the BCSD and officials of the County. In additionj Buono verbally abused LaDuca and falsely accused him oflying about the appropriate staffing requirements fer the Bomb Squad. Howevert the Federal Bureau of Investigation con?rmed that La?uca had accurately represented the stalling requirements; In March Bill T, as a result of a jurisdictional issue that arose from an investigation, Plaintiff, James Mullin asked his supervisors Undersheriff of the Brian Smith, for a copy of the 2017 Law Services Review Plan (LSRP), which is adocument created by the BCPO to delineate responsibilities of, inter aim, the BCSU. tJndersherilL Smith initially told Mullin that he would obtain the LSRP for him. However, a few days later, Smith informed Mullin that Saudino stated Mullin was net allowed to even see the LSRP and that l'vlullin should request the deetunent under the New Jersey ?Open Public Records Act? Saudino?s refusal to allow Plaintiffs Mullin to review the LSRP was unjusti?ed, unlawful and solely intended as another act of retaliation against Mullin for, inter his rejection of Saudino's Proposal. At the time of his request for the LSRP, Mullin was assigned as the ?custodian of records" for the Bureau of Police Services of the HCSD. Mullin needed the LSRP [or a legitimate department and management purpose relating to a pending investigation by him, Mullin's immediate supervisor, Undersheriff, Smith agreed that he l2 should be provided with the LSRP and recommended that he be provided the document, only to have Saudino block l'vlull'm?s justi?ed access. After Mullin ?led the DPRA request for the LSRP, Defendants still refused to give him the document. ?ts a result of Defendants? wrongful refusal to produce the LSRP, Mullin submitted a complaint to the New Jersey Records Council. In violation Saudino and other employees and officers of the BCSD, retaliated against lviul lin by, inter alia, physically relocating the entire BPS Records unit that l'vlullin oversaw to another building with no prior notice to Mullin, and then removing Mullin from his supervisory oversight of that unit. In addition, Mnllin was also removed as the designated ?custodian of records" of that unit. Also, in retaliation, Mullin, who was wrongfully demoted from Captain to Lieutenant in June EDIT, was also punitively removed by Saudino and the BCSD from his position as Commander of the criminal investigation unit, the detective bureau, of the BCSD, and was reassigned from a day?shift lo a night?shift in the patrol division, despite his seniority compared with Sheriff?s o?ccrs aligned with Saudino. Since, and in addition to, his demotion from Lieutenant to Sergeant, Plaintiff, James Smith continues to be retaliated against by Defendants through, inter aha, his punitive reassignment ?-orn day-shift commander to a night-shift Sergeant, despite his level of seniority compared to Sheriff?s of?cers aligned with Saudino. in addition, since his demotion, Smith has been forced to train volunteer fire?ghters to replace his former position on the Bergen County Police SCUBA team, Regional members to take his former position on that SWAT team, and Sheriff?s of?cers to replace him on the medical examiner?s investigation sound. which is demeaning and intended by Defendants as such; in addition to his retaliatory and unlawful demotion of Plaintiff, John Palette, Saudino and other officers and agents of the BCSD, have eliminated his prior supervisory assignment to Bergen Community College and transferred that assignment to the Sheriff?s of?cers, and have ptmitively removed and minimized Palerto?s investigation duties related to the Medical Examiner?s 13 Office, and have punitively instituted procedures for the Medical Examiners to ?rst notify Sheriff Operations of the need for investigators, and only then, upon approval cl~ the Undersherif f, allow county police investigators to respond, which disparately impacts Paletto; In a meeting with Plaintiff, Sara Toto in 2131?, Saudinc told her that she didnit need to worry about any demotion or termination, since she ?didn?t have children." This statement by Saudino was clearly demeaning, unprofessional and gender discriminatory. since Toro?s lack of children has nothing to do with her employment wi?t Defendants and since Tore is solely responsible for supporting herself, thereby making her ultimate demotion by Saudino, and the attendant less of wages and benefits resulting therefrom, a signi?cant ?nancial burden on her; {it} Since her necng?il demotion in i one Bill T, Plaintiff, Denise Ryaby has applied to join the Bergen County Bomb Squad, and has been refused assignment to that team by Saudino and other employees and agents of Defendants, in retaliation for Plaintiffs? rejection of his Proposal and Saudino?s unfair and disparate treatment in favor of Sheriff? ollicers compared to county police officers like her; and dcmoting Plaintiff, Carraliello from his rank of Lieutenant to Sergeant in June 2131?, removing him from his positions as the Range lvlaster for the Bergen County Police Academy firing range, the SWAT Team Leader tor the County and the Emergency Services Unit Conunandcr, and assigning him to the Midnight shift, despite, inter rtiio, his seniority and quali?cations, and by intentionally creating a hostile work environment for him, all of which led to his lbrced early retirement in 201? in order to mitigate at least some of his lost wages and benefits; All of the adverse employment actions set forth in paragraph 16 above were in retaliation for Plaintiifs, Carraiicllo, Devine, Espinosa and Mullin, inter ulio, reporting and complaining about various incidents, failures and violations of law, policies and regulations by high-ranking oflicials of the and the County to high?rardcing officers and of?cials of the and County, as set forth in detail in the Second Count below; 14 Despite being wrengfull}r demeted frem Sergeant dewn te effieer en June 26, Plainti?, IShristepher Chan was erdered by Undersheriff Brian Smith, whe is a eivilian empleyee ef the ECSD and whe is impreperly invelved in the day?te?da}r eperatiens ef a peliee department, in remain at the peliee desk and answer Medieal Examiner lnvestigatien ealls, is ajeh funetien perfermed h},r Sergeant?level eliieers, even theugh he is net being paid as a Sergeant; and {it} Bringing diseiplinarj.r eharges against Plaintiff, Gabriel Eseehar fer patently de minimns ineidents, sneh as a dent in his ear, that weuld never be hmught against Sheriff?s ef?eers aligned with Saudine. 19. In vielatien ef CEPA, Defendants, and their empleyees and agents, have alse aided and abetted, and eelluded with, eaeh ether in their retaliatien against Plaintiffs heeause ef Plaintilfs rejeetien ef Sandine?s Prepesal threngh eellnsien with Sandine and ether Sheriff?s effieers aligned with him by, inter niin, wrengfully demeting and terminating Plaintiffs remetring them pesitiens, assignments and teams, and reassigning them te lesser and punishment pests and shifts, as described aheve, and by intentienally ereating a hestile werk envirenment fer the denieted Plaintiffs whe were fereed inte in'ieeluntarilj.r early retirement and fer these whe eentinne te werlt fer Defendants, as set forth abuse. 20. As a result et'Detendants aetiens in Vielatien set ahes'e, Plaintiffs have suffered, and eentinne to suffer, mental anguish, pain, humiliatien, inereasing hestility in their werlt envirenment and reputatienal damage, as well as less ef senierity, lest wages, and lest health and pensien bene?ts, lest premetiens and permanent damage te their eareers in the {jaunt},r and as law enfereement effieers elsewhere. SECDND CDUNT (CEPA?Plaintiffs, Carra?elle, Devine, Espinesa and Mnllin} 21. Plainti?'s, Frank Carra?elle, Mike De?ne, Rehert Espinesa and James Mullin repeat, restate and ineerpeiate all ef the allegatiens set ferth in paragraphs 1 threngh 2i) aheve, as if repeated 15 verbatim herein. 22. At all times relevant herete, Plaintiffs, Canefielle, Devine, Espinesa and Mellie were empleycd as peliee effieers with the Ceunty in. the Bureau ef Felice Serviees cf the BCSD. l'vtuilin and Espinesa were assigned tn the Criminal lnvestigatiens Unit. Carra?elle {Range Master) aleng with Devine [?ftiee in Charge ef Pelice Training) were, as part ef their duties, assigned tn the Bergen Ceunty Felice Academy, which was under the eentrel and supervisien ef The Cetmty ef Bergen. 23. In August 2tl15, Plaintiff, Carra?elle was the Range Master fer the BCFR and Plaintitl', Mike Devine was assigned te the Bergen Ceunty Felice Academy at the time. in r?tugust 2015, Plaintiffs, llilarrafielle and Devinc made a request fer an environments] remediatien ef the BCFR te Directer cf the Bergen Ceunty Law and Public Safety institute, Richard Blehm. 'l'he BCFR has te he remediated every five years pmsuant tn the United States Envirenmentai ?eteetien Agency?s ?Best Management Praetiees? fer eutdeer firing ranges. The ef remediating the BCFB invelves cleaning the sand?berm en the range itself by sifting the sand ?nm the backstep through small screens in erder te remeve the lead prejeetiles from the seil. The seil is then returned te the backstep. The lead and eepper pmieetiles are hazardeus materials as a matter ef law, and must be pmperly dispesed ef er recycled tn EPA regulatiens. 24- Fellewing the request ?sr remediatien [rent Plainti?h, lCat-mfielle and Devine, in September 2tll5 Directer Blehrn sent the infermatien re the Ceunty and a reselutien was dra?ed te epen up a bidding fer private eempanies te eenduet the rcmediatien ef the BC FR. in respense te Plaintiff, Carra?elle's request fer remediatien, several eutside remediatien centraeters eame tn the BCFR te see hew they weuld eemplete the remediatien, and submit bids tn the Ceunty te handle the preject. 25. Hewever, as the neuter el? 2015 appreaehed, Plaintili", Carra?elle and his partner. and Range Officer at the BCFR, Steve Antenieu, were appreaehed by Phil Ar?tse, the prejeet manager fer the range remediatien at the BCFR- Ar?ise teld Plaintiff, Cana?elle and Antenieu that 15 the County had decided to do the range remediation themselves and not have an outside contractor complete the project. Unbelmownst to Plaintiffs. Carra?clle and Devine, the County had proposed a resolution to step the bidding process so that the County itself could perform the cleanup in a ?cost savings measure?. 26. Plaintiffs, Carra?ello and Devine advised Arfuso that the County should net use in- heuse personnel to remediate the BCFR. because, inter alto, there had been problems with prior remediation of the property and the remediation required in E?lti was far more complex and dif?cult eta project than Arl'uso or the County acknowledged. Arl?uso responded to Carra?clle and Devine?s advisement of outside contractors by telling them that the County had decided to use in-heuse personnel for the remediation to ?save money? and to make ?some money? by recycling and selling the lead removed from the sand berm located on the site of the ECFR. The in-house Bergen County Mosquito Commission were untrained and improperly equipped to conduct this type of work pursuant to regulations of the EPA and the New Jersey Department Environmental Protection 23. Plaintiff, De?ne also advised Director Blehm that it was not a good idea for the County general services personnel to perform environmental remediation work? and reminded him of the priorhistory of lines to the EPA caused by deficient remediation of the ECFR. Director Elohin told Devine that County could perform the remediation and would do so. regardless of his recommendation. Blohtn also told Devine that the County believed that they could sell the lead removed hunt the BCFR to a scrap metal yard and recover the costs involved in the remediation. Since January is usually the slowest month for ?rearms quali?cations at the HCFK Plaintil?lis. Carratiello and Devine wanted die remediation to take place in January 2016. so the remediation would not afflict the operations oi" the range. Plaintitl', Carra?ello and Antoniou gave the County and Arfuso dates for two weeks in January 2016 during which they would close the range for the remediation project. 30. The Ceuntyis rcmediatien ef'thc ECFR started in January 3016 and was scheduled te be completed within that twe weelt peried. Ell - IIeweyer, the remediatien preject enceuntcred prebletns here the beginning. The ?rst siftcr machine tipped ester and brelte, and the replacement sifter?s grates tee large te sift the lead eut cf the centaminated sand at the BCFR preperly. Then, ence the in?heuse ICeunty started te shift the centaininated sand, they remeyed approximately a dump truck and a half ef large reeks and beulders, which they then impreperly placed back inte the ?rearms impact sand en the range itself, despite ebjectiens by .w?tntenieu. 32. In additien, as part cf the alleged rcmediatien, Prejcct Directer Ari'use allewed centarninatcd sand Iicrn the range that centaincd actienable levels eI lead and ether centaminants te be unlawfully and dangcreusly placed in the ?re training area directly behind the main Life Safety Cemplett ef the Fire Academy training greunds. Dyer the nest feurteen [Ml menths, the centaminated sand pile, was epcn tn the elements, and was allewed te leach unimpeded directly ente the grass, and surreundiug parking area, driveway and an area near the tire training greunds. Only an impreperly secured blue tarp held desire by reclts had been placed ever the remaining centarninated sand after the pile had already been allewed te signi?cantly reduce in size by the elements. 33. In March Z?ld, the fire instructers liled a unien grievance ever the centarninated seil Item the BCFR leaching ente their training gnuunds. In additien, the Saddle River Fire Department cemplaiucd te Directer Blehm that their tire equipment was dragged threugh the centarninated seil frem the BCFR and, censequently, had te be replaced. The tire instructers? unien yeiecd their concerns abeut the centarnjnatien emanating frern the BCFR te Directer Biehm, whe, in turn, impreperly instructed the ?re instructers te hese dewn the centarninated seil late the stemi drains lecated en the fire training greunds, which they ?ght?rlly refused te dc. In additien, Directer Blehrn instructed die Ceunty street sweepers te pick up all the seil, which they did, but witheut being IS given and wearing the required preper persen preteetien equipment (PPR). 34. In Maren 2016, the Bergen Cennty Regienal SWAT Team was eendneting their Saheday training at the Life Safety Cemplea. Direeter Blehm neyer teld them that they were training in and areund hazardens materials. Direeter Blehm impreperly instructed the day?time te hese eff the eentarninated training grenade. 35 . in mid?March, 2ft] ti, Ce unty empleyees werlting at the BCFR pl aeed large reeks haek inte the berm that sets as the baeltstep en the ?rearms range- Planing the reeks baelr inte the harm wenld elearly ereate a dangereus and life?threatening safety hazard, sinee the ?led bullets eenld hit a reek and bank teward the sheeters and ethers. 36. The impreper plaeing efthe reeks in the sand been en the firing range led to a meeting between Plaintiffs, Carrafielle and Deyine, Antenieu and Directer Riehard Blehm en March 5, 21316. During the meeting, Plaintiff, Earrajielle that Direeter Blehm eall the EPA fer gnidanee en, inter effe, preperly remediating dre ECFR te their standards, whieh lCarrafielle believed was required as a matter ef law and publie safety at that time. In response in Carra?elle?s that the EPA he eentaeted regarding the eentaminatien and remediatien ef the BCFR, Direeter Blehm teld Carrafieile that he weuld net invelye the EPA and threatened Carrafielle net te persenally eentaet the EPA. Direeter Biehm speeifieally threatened these present by stating: ?I?m net ealling the EPA, and yen wenld be smart net te de that eithEr! 33. area a number ef errers and preblerns, the alleged remediatien was net eempleted until mid-March 2015, ever awe (31} menths later than it sheuld have been. 39. After the alleged remediatien was eempleted at the BCPR and it was finally reopened, Plaintiff, Carra?elle eentinned te meniter the pile ef eentaminated sand eentaining harardens materials that was left behind en the grass area in the tire training grennds. la the beginning there was a blue tarp plaeed ever the dumpster and adjaeent pile. 1'9 4i). in Fehmary Carralieile netifi cd Directer Blehm by e?mail cencerning the ripped tarps en the centaminatcd sand still dumped behind the Life Safety C?emplcit. Carraiielle then fellewed?up with anether email tn Directnr Blehm en April 3, in which he infenned him that the tarp had hlewn eff ef the centaminated sand pile and was being blown en tn the surrennding areas. Carraficlle alse again requested that the rcmediated sand preperly remeved pursuant te EPA guidelines and standards, ?Best Management Practices fer Lead at Clutdeer Sheeting Ranges?. After rte respensc frem Directer Elehm, Plaintiff, Carraficlie reperted the illegally dumped and impreperly stered centaminated sand at the ECPR threngh his chain?ef?cemniand te his supetier, ranking eiIicers. Immediately a?cr e?mailing Biehrn en April 3, 2ft 1 T, Carrafreile centacted his chain-ellcemmand including Chief Pell. Capt. Lepinslti, and Capt. Mullin. On April 5, EDIT, after net hearing hack frem Directer Blehm er Chief Pcll, Carraiielle centacted the NJDEP. Then en April a, 2131?, Carra?elie contacted the EPA. 42. On April T, 2i] 1 it, Plaintiffs, James ?iviullin and Rehert Espinc-sa received a repert frem Plaintiff, Carra?clle regarding the dumping material en Ceunty preperty at the BCFR, which is a crime in the state efhiew Jersey- 43. As a result ef this repert, Plaintiffs, Mnllin and Espinesa epened a criminal investigatien inte the illegal dumping and gave netiticatien ef his investigatien te his ranhin elliccrs in his chainef? cemmand, as required by BCSD precedurcs. At the directien ef Plaintiffs, Mullin and Espinesa, twe detectives {Garcia and Saldana} frem the Bureau ef Pelice Services el' the BCSCI were assigned te begin an investigatien ef Plaintiff, Carrafielle?s cempiaint. 44- As part ef their investigatien inte Plaintiff, Carraficlle?s eemplaint. the assigned deteetives centacted the Bureau ef Criminal lnvestigatien in erder te, inter afie, phetegraph and decument the illegally dumped and centaminatcd sand. Hewcver, while in reutc tn the Bergen Ceunty Police Academy, and after Detectives interviewed Directer Biehm, BCiis respensc was cancelled, Undersheri ff Brian Smith cancelled that part ef their investigatien and then 20 interrogated Plaintiff, James Mullin, regarding his authority to start an investigation into the illegally dumped hazardous material on County property. 45. In addition, after the assigned Detectives conducted their ?rst interview of Director, Blohrn, who is a County employee, Plaintiff, Mullin received a telephone call from Brian Smith of the BCSD, who ordered Mullin to stop his investigation and instruct his staff to ?only assist the environmental regulatory agency." Mullin informed Undersheriff, Smith that there were possible crimes committed at the BC FR, but Smith ordered l'vIullin to cease his investigation anyway. Plaintiffs, Mullin and Espinosa, who was in the room when Mullin received the call from Smith, viewed this as improper political intervention in the investigation ofa crime because the possible suspect {Blohrn} was a County of?cial with personal andior professional connections to Bergen County Executive James Tedesco- Plaintiff, Mullin reported this wrongful interference into his lawful investigation to the EPA by e-mail. 46. A few days later, Plaintiff, Mullin received a request from EPA investigator, Tom Dooley, for assistance in their investigation and, accordingly, Mullin assigned detectives to assist Dooley. A few days lamr investigator Ernie Tenco from the Bergen County Inspector General?s office was at the Bureau of Police Services Criminal Investigations Unit asking for copies of the investigation report. Since Plaintiff, Espinosa didnlt believe that personnel of the County should receive a copy of the investigation report because ofpoten tial con?icts of interest, he contacted Plaintiff, Mullin. Mullin instructed Espinosa to contact Dooley, which he did. Dooley told Espinosa to give the Inspector Generalls of?ce copies of the report. Espinosa then placed Dooley on speaker phone with Investigator Yenco and Detective Saldana, since he wanted to determine the best way to interview some of the individuals involved and possibly coordinate the meetings with ?t?cnco, who also had to interview some of the same individuals. All participants on the conference call agreed that it was best for Dooley to appear for the interviews, without prior notice, and questions the 2] individuals. A date was agreed upon for Ihe interviews and Espinosa assigned Detective Saldana to assist him in the interviews. Although Tenco agreed that the scheduling oli the interviews should remain con?dential, when Dooley arrived to conduct the interviews an attorney representing the County was present and sat-in on the interviews. 43. When die EPA began to interview County employees regarding the contamination and purported remediation of the BCFR. site, Undersheriff, Smith asked Plaintiff, Mullin if BCSC personnel were still involved with the ease. Mullin explained to him that they were because he had received a request for assistance from a criminal investigator From the EPA. Undersheriff. Smith demanded a meeting with investigator Dooley, which was facilitated by Mnllin, who took Dooley to the Smith?s of?ce, at which Dooley, Mullin and Smith had a brief discussion. 49. However, the day after their meeting, Plaintiff, Mnllin was advised by one of the deteotives assigned to the investigation that alter their meeting Undersheri H, Smith called investigator Dooley and instructed him to out the detectives ?'om the Bureau of Police Services under Mullin?s supervision out of the investigation. Undersheriff, Smith also told Investigator Dooley that if he needed any assistance, he should contact Smith and he would assign detectives from to assist Dooley. SUI. As the result of Plaintiff, Carra?ello?s complaints, Bergen County Hazmat responded to the BCFP. and blocked the County general servicesl workers from moving the contaminated sand because, inter alto, they did not have the proper licenses and did not have any of the DSHA required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) mandated for public employees dealing with hazardous materials. In April of EDIT, with the contaminated sand still in the same location, and having potentially leached onto and throughout the porous dirt area behind the LSC, Plaintiff, Carraliello, having no response from Blohm or the County, personally called the EPA and the NJDEP, both of 22 which are public bodies for purposes of CEPA, and reported, inter trim. the deficient remediation of the BCFR in order to have the contaminated area inspected for public safety. 52. Go June 2012', Plaintiff, Devine was informed that he was going to be interviewed by John Lihretti, Esq., the Bergen County inspector General, shout the remediation of the BCPR. Plaintiff, Devine reported this interview to Chief Poll of the Undersheriff Smith and to Plaintiff, Mullin, who were the ranking officers in his I-Iowever. Devine did not get any response From Chief Poll and Undersheriff Smith. Plaintiff, Mull'm acknowledged receipt of Devine?s noti?cation. 53. On Tuesday June 13, 2012, Plainti Devine met with the inspector General, Lihretti and Venice regarding the range remediation, during which he informed about what had been occurring at the BCFR and in which he supported Plaintiff, CaITafiello?s handling of the matter. Yet, nothing was done by the Defendants with regard to this interview. 54. instead, on June 26. 2131?, just two (2) weeks after his interview with Inspector General, Libretti, Plaintiff, Dcvine was noti?ed by an e?mail that he was punitively and retaiiatorily removed by Defeadants from his longstanding assignment to the Bergen County Police Academy and was also transferred to the mid?night shi? effective June 30, 2012. Then, on June Plaintiff, Devinc was notified by e-mail from Saudino that he was being demoted effective June 26, 55. {in July 1, 2ftl2, Plaintiffs, Devine and Carra?ello were punitively transferred to the midnight shift on patrol as a Sergeant, even though he is the senior Sergeant in the BCSD. Devine is the senior Sergeant working mid?night shifts, which makes him the commander and which is, in fact, a Lieutenant?rank position. Despite not being paid as a Lieutenant, Devine performs all of the duties and has all of the responsibilities of a Lieutenant so. As set forth in detail above, in clear retaliation against Plaintiffs, Carrafiello, Devine, Espinosa and Mullin for their reporting of the environmental contamination at the BCFR to, inter niio, the EPA and the NJDEP, and their investigation of the uniaw?il and de?cient, and potentially 23 criminal, remediatien ef the BCFR, Defendants retaliated against these Plaintith in vielatien ef CEPA by, inter trite, iselating Cairalielle and remeving him frern any further meetings and deeisiens regarding the BCFR, despite his eemmand nesitien at that Ceunty ineluding, hut net limited te, failing te netify Carralieile aheut an emergeney meeting called in diseuss elesing ef the range fer ?emergeney? maintenanee in late May 101?, whieh, in faet, led tn the elesing ef the range beginning en June 19, 2'01? witheut Carratielle?s knewledge, even theugh he was the range master at the time and had been [in appreaitnately fear years prier therete. Alse, shertly after the meeting frern whieh Cairalielle had been eaeluded, Sergeant Mike Deyle ef the was placed in-eharge el?all range affairs. Carra?eile never any prier neti?eatien el? Deyle's replaeement at him, and was eernpletely remeved frem all range affairs in retaliatien, inter aim, her his reperting ef the eentaminatien and de?eient remediatien at the BCFR. Then, an lane 26, shertly after he was punitively remuved frem BCFR eperatiens, Plaintiff, Carrafielie was demeted frem Lieutenant dewn te Sergeant, and punitiveiy reassigned tn the midr?ght shift, despite his senierity with the ECHO. As set ferth aheve, Defendants alse retaliated against Plaintiffs, Devine, Espinesa and Mullin hy danieting them and punitively remeving them frern their assignments fer their investigating ef the unlaw?? remediatien and eentaminatien ef the BCFR, all in vielatien 1n vielatien ef CEPA, Defendants, and their empleyees and agents, have else aided and abetted, and eelluded with, eaeh ether in their retaliatien against Plaintiffs, lEarraiielle, Devine, Espinesa and Mullin fer their reperting ef the envirenmental eentaminatien at the BCFR tn, inter trite, the EPA and the HJDEP, and their investigatien ef the unlaw?il and defieienl, and petentially eriminal, remediatien ef the BCPR, Delendants retaliated against these Plaintiffs in vielatien ef CEPA, and by intentienally ereating a hestile werk envirenment fer these Plaintiffs te feree them inte inveluntarily early retirement er te resign, as set ferth aheve. in mid-Nevemher Elili', Carra?elle involuntarily ?led fer retirement due te the retaliatery aetiens and hestile werk envirenment and fear of future retaliatien hy the ECSD te whieh he is being suhjeeted due te, inter aim, his invelvement in 24 reporting the de?cient and unlaw?tl remediation of the BCFR. 53. Due, truer ratio, to the investigation into the de?cient and unlawful remediation of the BC fR, Plaintiff, Mullin, who sent an e?mail to have outside agencies conduct a criminal investigation into the County's handling ofthe matter, was demoted ?'om Captain to Lieutenant and removed from the unit and involuntarily Forced into early retirement, 59. As a result of Defendants? actions in violation of CEPA set forth above, Plaintiffs, Carratiello, Devinc, Espinosa and lvtullin have suffered, and continue to suffer, mental anguish, pain, humiliation, increasing hostility in their work environment and reputational damage, as well as loss of seniority, lost wages, and lost health and pension benefits, lost pmmotions and permanent damage to their careers in the County and as law enforcement of?cers. THIRD CGUNT {CEPA-Plaintj if, Baker} tit). PlainthT, John Baker (?Baker?) repeats, restatcs and incorporates all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 59 above, as if repeated verbatim herein. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants and the BCPD were the employers of Baker as that term is de?ned under the Conscientious Employee Protection r?tct MJEA. 34:19- er. seq., with regard to his employment as a police officer with the ECSC- and as a member of the Bergen County Regional SWAT which was controlled and overseen by Saudino, the BCPCI and now-former Bergen County Prosecutor, Crurbir S. ISrewal. 62. r?tt all times relevant hereto, Baker was employed as a police officer with the County in the Bureau of Police Services of the BCSCI and was a member of the EST. 63. in addition to the retaliation and hostile work environment to which Baker was subjected by Detendants in violation of CEPA, as set forth in paragraphld above, Defendants and the BCPCI, and employees and agents thereof, have continued to retaliate against Baker since his wrongful demotion and have continued to create an increasingly abusive and hostile work 25 envirenrnent fer him in erder te, inter alter, pressure him te inveluntarilv resign frent the BCSD, with sueh aets efhestilitv, harassment and abuse, ineluding: De Sept 13, 2017, Baker was advised by Sergeant .lehn Behr ef the BC SD that he needed te appear fer a physical ?tness test an Sept 16, EDI T. Hewever, When Baker arrived at the physieal ?tness test, he advised Lieutenant Cheek Silverstein ef the BCSD that he was still being treated fer bleed elets and eeuld net rtni pursuant te his deeter?s erders, but weuld be eleared fer his phvsieai ?tness test within a few mend-is; On Sept El], Baker e-mailed Silverstein te eenfirm their diseussien regarding his mediea] eenditien. In that e?mail, Baker alse ineluded a list of his previeus den-tens appeintments and a nete frem his treating physieian; (in Get SHIT, Baker an e-niailed letter frem Assistant Bergen Ceuntv Preseeuter Martian P. Delanv, the legal adviser fer the HST. Delanev?s letter falsely aeeused Baker ef failing te respend te a previeus letter that Delaney allegedly sent Baker en September as. 301?. lIewever, Baker never any sueh letter ?'etn Delaney; In respense te Delanev?s Deteher 23?? letter, Baker telephened Delaney and left a veiee?rnail message asking Delaney,r te eat] him. Hewever, Delaney never ealled Baker. Dn Hevember 1 l, 2131?, Baker ebserved Delaney enter BCSD headquarters Baker speke with Delaney abeut the l'aet that he never any September 25m letter hear him. Hewever, Delaneyr netilied Baker that he was suspended l'rem the EST beeause ef his failure te respend te ?te September 26?? letter; When Baker denied ebjeeted te the false allegations that Delaneyr eentinued te make against him, Baker was suddenly surreunded by numereus effieers ef the RST, ene efwhem, Detective Juan Arresave ef the BCPD, and the HST eemmander, attempted te physieally attaek Baker. Deteetive Arrevave had In be physieallv restrained frem assaulting Baker by ether ef?eers present. Detective r-?trrevave then sereamed at Baker, teld him te ?shut the funk up,? ealled him a 215 ?pussy? and demanded that he ?quit" and ?get the fuek out," or he would ?ltiek his ass.? All ef this above?deseribed unlawful, violent, demeaning and abusive eonduet in an area with a eamera, in fear for his physieai safety, Baker left the area, but did file an lntemal Affairs eornplaint about the incident; and Despite the fact that he hadjust been physieally and unlawfully threatened and insulted by Beteetive Arroyave and other offieers, on November 13, 2017,just two days after the ineident deserihed above, Baker. not Deteetive Arroyave, written neti?eatien from lChief Kevin Pell of the BCBU that he was immediately dismissed as a member of the HST. Defendant, Saudino, and ether ranking o?ieers of the County and BCSD were noti?ed of Plaintiff, Batteris dismissal, but have taken no aetiens to remedy this wrong?il and unlawful eenduet. ea. In violation of CEPA, Defendants and. the BCPO, and their employees and agents, have aided and abetted, and eolluded with, eaeh otl'ier in their retaliation agahtst Plaintiff. Baker because his rejeetien of Saudiue?s Proposal through eolluaien with Delaney, Arreyave, Saudino and ether Sheriff?s ot??eers and BCPD employees aligned wi?t him by, inter wrongfully demeting Plaintiff, Baker, punitively removing him, inter trite, from his assignment to the HST, humping-up false diseiplinary eharges against him relating to the events leading to, and surrounding the November I l, ineident, in whieh Baker was attaeked, and then reassigning him to lesser and punishment pests and shifts, and by intentionally ereating a hostile work environment for Baker in order to pressure him into an involuntarily resignation or early retirement. 65. As a result of Defendants? aetions in violation of CEPA set forth above, Plaintiff, Baker has suffered, and eentinue to suffer, mental anguish, pain, humiliation, inereasing hostility in his work environment and reputational damage, as well as less ofsenierity, lost wages, and lost health and pension bene?ts, lest promotions and permanent damage to his earoer in the County and as law enfereernent ofiieer elsewhere. 27" FDURTH CDUNT (Sexual Harassment and Sexual Drientation Discrimination?AD?Flaintitf, Andrew Kara) as. Plainti??, Andrew Kara (?Kara") repeats, restates and incorporates all of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 155 above, as if repeated verbatim herein. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants and the BCPD were the employers of Kara, as that term is de?ned under the New Jorsey Law Against Discrimination MESH. I, er. sea, with regard to his employment as a police officer with the BCSD and as a member of the Bergen County Regional SWAT which was controlled and overseen by Saudino, the BCPD and now-fonner Bergen County Prosecutor, Dorbir S. firewall. ea. At all times relevant hereto, Kara was employed as a police officer in the Bureau of Police Services of the BCSD, andfor its predecessor the Bergen County Polioe Department, was a member of the EST, and was a member ofa protected class {a homosexual) under the LAD. 69. Under the LAD, it is an unlawful employment practice and unlaw?il discrimination for an employer, and any agents and employees thereof, to sexually harass an employee, ande?or to discriminate against an employee because of the employee?s affectionai or sexual orientation in terms of compensation and with regard to any conditions and privileges of employment. The essential purpo sc of the LAD is the eradication of die cancer ofdiserirnination, and, thus, is intended to prohibit discrimination in all aspects ofthe employment relationship. it]. Defendants and the BCPCI have engaged in a relentless and malicious pattern of sexual harassment and sexual orientation discrimination against Kara, which created a hostile work enviromnent and which was, jointly and severally with the allegations set forth in me First Count of this Complaint supra, othe bad faith motive behind Defendants? unlawful termination of his employment as a police of?cer in the BCSD and from his membership on me EST, with such acts of sexual harassment and sexual orientation discrimination by Defendants and the BC PD including, inter offer: 23 discriminatory, abusive, hostile and patemly offensive sexual and homophobic statements, allegations and conduct against Plaintiff, Kara, including, but not limited to, referring to Plaintiff, Kara as a ?tag,? ?queer," ?lieak? and ?homo"; mocking and demeaning Kara, who is former United States Marine, as feminine and girlish because of his sexual preference and because he wore his military running shorts during physical training and sarcastically referring to an old television commercial for ?Nair,? a hair removal product by and for women, in which thejingle was: ?Who vvcars short shorts, we wear short shorts?: Relentlessly and viciously targeting, mocking and demeaning Kara on RST text messaging chat groups solely because of his sexual preference, which was perpetrated by Kara colleagues and supervisory, ranking of?ces in The RST, including, not limited to, Lieutenant Chuck Silversten of the BCSD, who was in the chat gmup, aware of the sexual harassment, discrimination and hostility directed toward me by of?cers, including Sheriffs o?icers of the BCSD, and yet allowed the patently discriminatory and abusive conduct to continue against me, as well as Sergeant Mike Fchsal, a member of the HST, who directly participated in the abusive and discriminatory conduct directed toward me, both through mitten text messages and verbally in person dtu?i training sessions of the RST, but vvas never told to stop by any ranking of?cers of the BCSD or BCPO, who control and oversee the HST. Sergeant Frank Tripodi of the BCSD mocked Ram?s sexual preference by insinuating that Kara has had ?worse things spilled in his face" than water and that he was sure Kara ?choked on a thing or two in his lifetime,? as he simulated fellatio between two men. Sergeant Frank Tripodi of the BCSD falsely mocked Kara for having AIDS. because of his thinness, and sarcastically asking Kara whether he had any AIDS (in. acquired immune deficiency medicine; and Lieutenant Chuck Silverstein of the BCSD, and joint commander of the 29 Regional SWAT Team, and Sergeant Frank Tripodi were both present when another of?cer mocked Kara by asking him whether he had any medicine," but failed to discipline that offensive of?cer for his discriminatory conduct; and Despite reporting the sexual harassment and scaual orientation discrimination to Detective Juan Arroayave of the BCPU, who oversees the EST, the offensive, hostile and abusive conduct against Islam did not cease. in addition, in violation of the LAD, Defendants and the BEFU, and their employees and agents, have aided and abetted, and celluded with, each other in their seaual harassment and retaliation against Plaintiff, Kara because of his sexual orientation as a gay man by, inter alto, subjecting him to an abusive and hostile work environment, punitively denying him positions, assignments and teams, and then wrongfully terminating him in June 2ft] in violation of the Leaf}. 71. As a result of Dcfendantsi actions in violatinn of the LAD set forth above, Plaintiff, Andrew Kara has suffered, and continues to suffer, mental anguish, pain, humiliation and reputational damage, as well as loss of seniorityr as a law enforcement o?icer, lost wages, lost health and pension benefits, lost promotions and permanent damage to his career in the County and as a law enforcement officer elacwherc. WHEREFDRE, with cause having been shown, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, on all of the Counts of this Complaint and for the following relief: Compensatory damages for emotional distress, pain and sullenng, and lost wages and bene?ts; Punitive damages; Attorney?s fees and costs; and Such other relief the court may deem equitable and just. 313 A a? Date: Matthew A. an. Eeunael fer Plaintiffs DEMAND DR TRIAL BY JURY Flainti??is demand a trial by jury en all and allegatieua in this aetieu. Date: 2e,2e1r Matthew A. Peluae, Esq. Ceunael fer Plainti?'a CERTIFICATIUN Pursuant te New Jersey Rule 4:5? I Plai ntiffa hereby eertify that te the beat ef their knewledge this matter is net the auhjeet ef any pending arhih?atieu er litigatien, Date: December 20, Ala/Q16": Matthew?t. Peluae Esq. CeunaeI fer Plainti?a